W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Datatypes - chair's ruling on part 4 [was proposal to close issue 5.8 datatypes]

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:42:08 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111703ba1ce3ff5e8d@[]>
To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

In [1] Peter Patel-Schneider made a five part proposal to close the 
datatyping issue.  One section of this was:

>4/ OWL can use XML Schema non-list simple types defined at the top
>    level of an XML Schema document and given a name, by using the URI
>    reference constructed from the URI of the document and the local name of
>    the simple type.  That is, if U is the URI of an XML Schema document
>    that contains,
>    <xsd:schema ...>
>      <xsd:simpleType name="foo">
>        <xsd:restriction base="integer">
>         <xsd:minInclusive value="1700">
>        </xsd:restriction>
>      </xsd:simpleType>
>      ...
>    </xsd:schema>
>    then the URI reference U#foo will be that datatype.
>    Implementations of OWL may choose to ignore the facets such a type.

Although I personally think this is a good proposal, the right way to 
do this, and something OWL needs,  I am afraid that I (very 
reluctantly) have to rule this piece of this proposal OUT OF SCOPE 
for WOWG based on W3C process and charter considerations.

This is because, Another Working Group, XML Schema [2], has been 
asked by the W3C to develop a recommendation for creating URIs for 
these kinds of user-defined datatypes which is in the scope of their 
charter [3].  The W3C process for dealing with issues where two 
groups in the same activity have a conflict is to ask the 
coordination group to resolve it [4].  Unfortunately, XML Schema and 
WOWG are NOT in the same activity, so this resolution cannot be made 
by the SW-CG.  The SW-CG has assigned actions (see [5]) aimed at 
starting dialog with XML Schema on a resolution of this issue 
satisfactory to both WOWG and RDF Core, but that cannot have a 
specific resolution date or etc. since it is not in our hands.

Thus, I see the situation as:
  a. an issue was raised in our group,
  b. the issue is not explicitly in our charter, though if is clearly 
important to our language needs
  c. the issue raised a dependency with another group
  d. that group was determined to have this issue explicitely in its charter
  e. the issue was raised to a coordination group, action has been 
taken, but it cannot override the charter of another W3C group (esp. 
one in another domain)

by W3C process, I see no choice but to rule this specific issue (how 
to assign URIs to a user-defined XML Schema datatype) as out of the 
scope of our charter.

(to put it simply, our WG cannot do something another WG is chartered 
to do, just as we would complain if some other group decided they 
were going to have some ontological constructs in their language - 
that's our chartered work)

  If someone in our WG would like to take an action to draft a 
message, from the WG to XML Schema (they have a public comments list) 
expressing our need for user-defined types and our proposed solution, 
this could be presented to our WG, and if approved, could be sent as 
a consensus opinion of our WG to the XML Schema WG -- this would 
carry more weight than if an individual complains).  I certainly see 
preparing such a message in the WG's name as within our rights by W3C 

Please Note: the other four parts of Peter's datatype proposal [1], 
are certainly within our scope, and I propose we discuss and close 
this proposal as soon as we can.

  -Jim Hendler
  Web Ontology Working Group CoChair

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0265.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Schemas.html (member only)
[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/12/xmlbp/xml-schema-wg-charter.html (member only)
(member only)
[5] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/09-swcg-irc.html (member only)
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 08:42:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:49 UTC